Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[sailorboy1]

Anchor tests never really seem all that consistent. The top anchor seem to mostly stay near the top of performance. But lots of the middle performers move up a lot on a lot of the tests.

I was dreaming the other day and looking at high end boats that were more than $1 million. It was wild in that none of them came with next generation anchors and were standard with either CQRs or Deltas.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

The Practical Sailor anchor data is clearly swayed by the same writer that tries to sway us here.

In other words, he is dishonest. Is that truly your position?

Originally Posted by Cotemar

We just post un-biased anchor data from all over the world and from un-biased testers and writers.When you look at our data you do have to open one or both eyes as the top rated anchor are the ones with higher bars. You tend to only see the lower rated ones on the charts. We here cannot help you with poor eye sight as the data we are giving is clear as can be.

My eyesight is poor? Below are your datasets, and I would draw your attention to the goofball convex Hydrobubble for a comparison to Rocna and Manson. See any pattern there, or perhaps something about the results that would challenge your statement? Can you identify in this data the "problem bend" in the Hydrobubble that exists, or justify your statement that their silly plastic bubble prevents them from digging in?

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Your conspiracy theory always takes us to one anchor and one location that the majority of us do not want to be.

My conspiracy theory? Setting aside the essential incoherence of your statement, aren't you the one who opined on an earlier thread that there was something called "Team Anchorite", and imagine that just because a journalist you disagree with exists, he must be nefariously trying to trick people with bad information?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Anchor tests never really seem all that consistent. The top anchor seem to mostly stay near the top of performance. But lots of the middle performers move up a lot on a lot of the tests.

I was dreaming the other day and looking at high end boats that were more than $1 million. It was wild in that none of them came with next generation anchors and were standard with either CQRs or Deltas.

I've noticed the same thing, but I believe it has more to do with the fact that frequently these boats never anchor. Interestingly, on my dock for 50+ boats, there are more Ultras than Rocnas, no Mansons but lots of Bruce types and a few CQRs.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

How did you know I was talking about you? Having been around mechanical equipment sales for years I am used to product "features" that sound nice but mean little in real life.

That's OK. Based on this and your various other low key trashing of other anchors I wouldn't buy your anchor anyway. Just like Craig Smith when on CF turned me off to the ronca. I can tell that you have lots of experience, but when someone tries so hard it starts to put up warning flags to me.

If a salesman talks too hard be suspicious.

I prefer to listen to those living on the hook sailors who deal with the real world.

[VFerreira]

You idiots.

An anchor is an anchor is an anchor.

It must look good on your bow.

Shiny is better.

That's it.

[Stumble]

Frankly I just don't understand the issue. Any anchor manufacturer that really believes in their anchors should be submitting them to one of the classification societies for at minimum Type Approval. Any anchor that hasn't been submitted I consider suspect, period. Of those anchors tested it would only consider one rated as SHHP (Super High Holding Power) or it's equivalent.

This establishes a baseline holding power, at least of the type, that has to be proven in front of impartial observers who are experts in the field, and have the best interest of the shipping industry (read insurance companies) at heart. They are absolutely biased, but biased in favor of an anchor that does exactly what is says it does, since the insurance companies are the ones that have to write checks if things go sideways.

Once an anchor meets the minimum threshold (SHHP) then we are talking about relatively minor differences in anchor performance. Some are better in certain conditions than others, and obviously there is a lot of debate on the subject, but frankly I don't think as an all round rule there are many clear winners or losers. There is a lot of independent testing between them, but much like the argument between Ferrari and Porsche owners I think the fight will never be over.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Frankly I just don't understand the issue. Any anchor manufacturer that really believes in their anchors should be submitting them to one of the classification societies for at minimum Type Approval. Any anchor that hasn't been submitted I consider suspect, period. Of those anchors tested it would only consider one rated as SHHP (Super High Holding Power) or it's equivalent.

This establishes a baseline holding power, at least of the type, that has to be proven in front of impartial observers who are experts in the field, and have the best interest of the shipping industry (read insurance companies) at heart. They are absolutely biased, but biased in favor of an anchor that does exactly what is says it does, since the insurance companies are the ones that have to write checks if things go sideways.

Once an anchor meets the minimum threshold (SHHP) then we are talking about relatively minor differences in anchor performance. Some are better in certain conditions than others, and obviously there is a lot of debate on the subject, but frankly I don't think as an all round rule there are many clear winners or losers. There is a lot of independent testing between them, but much like the argument between Ferrari and Porsche owners I think the fight will never be over.

There are some interesting posts on what these classifications actually mean, and how little they actually tell us about the suitability of an anchor.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Once an anchor meets the minimum threshold (SHHP) then we are talking about relatively minor differences in anchor performance.

The problem with the SHHP standard is that the holding requirment is very low.
It equates to about 400lbs (with a 10:1 scope) for the sized anchors on the test above. Note the better performing anchors hold over 5,000lbs (@5:1)(at which point the test was stopped)

[Jimbo485]

Noelex, do any of the old gen anchors meet the SHHP certification standard?

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Stumble

but much like the argument between Ferrari and Porsche owners I think the fight will never be over.

The difference there is that Ferrari owners think that the other brand makes a better anchor, and vice versa.

Coops.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by VFerreira

You idiots.

An anchor is an anchor is an anchor.

It must look good on your bow.

Shiny is better.

That's it.

Polished stainless is for posers. Gold plated is where its at!

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Jimbo485

Noelex, do any of the old gen anchors meet the SHHP certification standard?

It was only introduced quite recently and the high cost of testing mean that very few anchor manufacturers have gone through the testing process.
Companies that sell large anchors have more incentive as commercial boats in some countries must use a certified anchor. In Australia I believe this rule extends rather unusually to charter yachts.

The tested holding force for a SHHP anchor equates to a less than 27 knots of wind (making some assumptions) so you can do your own test in this wind strength (assuming you have given the anchor every chance with a 10:1 scope)

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Jimbo485

Noelex, do any of the old gen anchors meet the SHHP certification standard?

Very briefly and simplistically:

SHHP Classification implies 2 things, the anchor has been made correctly and the Classification Society is confirming that work practices are correct and the design is sound. Secondly the anchor is twice as good as an HHP anchor.

Buyers thus know they are dealing with a supplier that has at least been vetted for its process, the design is sound (its strong enough), it has been tested and proven to be strong enough and it has 'Super High Holding Capacity'.

The testing procedures might not be entirely relevant for leisure sailors - but its all we have (as many do not like the results of magazine tests - even though the magazine tests throw up similar holding capacity test results).

A reason for going through the considerable expense of Classification Society testing is that many marine jurisdictions demand that vessels meet CS survey requirements and this means carrying a certified anchor. If you are not certified you miss out on a lucrative market. From our viewpoint we have manufacturers that are regularly vetted - so they are not cowboy, fly by night, suppliers selling weak anchors with little or no quality control. Many anchors on the market today would simply not meet CS SHHP requirement as they would not meet Proof Load requirement nor simple quality control standards.


As far as I am aware the Manson Supreme was the first anchor to be awarded SHHP rating. This was awarded by Lloyds and I think covers their complete range of Supreme sizes. Manson are CS approved for all their anchors (except Racer and Boss - this might have changed), their other anchors are HHP approved). However their whole production has been approved.

Rocna are covered by RINA for anchors 55kg and over as SHHP but not for the smaller models (the smaller models have cast flukes and this was not covered in the RINA SHHP certification). There was talk the certification would be re-conducted to cover the smaller models and this might have been done - but I have seen no new information.

Ultra have an equivalent to SHHP under ABS, for some reason ABS do not use the nomenclature SHHP but the standards are the same. Consequently there factory has been vetted and approved, the anchors have been Proof Tested and the anchors are twice as good, in terms of holding, as an HHP anchor. An obvious market for Ultra are large flash yachts, many of which have paid crew and will thus be made to Survey.

Fortress have SHHP for some of their models from a number of different Classification Societies, ABS and DNV I think. I suspect Fortress might need the certification to allow usage of their anchors on US Navy and Coastguard vessels (but I'm guessing).

Anchor Right have SHHP for both their Super SARCA amd their Excel under Australian requirements, which are the same tests as Lloyds, DNV etc. AR need approval as virtually any vessel (rumour has it now including runabouts) used for commercial purposes) now need approved ground tackle.

There are a couple of larger anchors 200kg and bigger, primarily used on Super Yachts and large work boats that are SHHP (one of these is a Bruce type with a double (side by side) shank). There may be other commercial (as opposed to leisure) anchors.

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

If a salesman talks too hard be suspicious.

I prefer to listen to those living on the hook sailors who deal with the real world.

I suspect a good snubber and riding sail would render the minor design details being argued about indectable.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by conachair

I suspect a good snubber and riding sail would render the minor design details being argued about indectable.

I'd value any valid suggestions for a riding sail for a multihull. All I read is focussed at monohulls (and I have never, ever seen one in action)

Jonathan